Obama and McCain offer a choice, not an echo
This presidential race will be the first real Right v. Left contest in a long time, says Irwin Stelzer. On free trade, healthcare, tax and pariah regimes, the two men are worlds apart
It is no secret that most British, European and other voters would cast their ballots for the Illinois senator, given the chance. This despite that fact that he has signed on to the protectionist programme of the trade unions in response to the now-widespread feeling in the USA that free trade is the cause of job losses and the general ‘de-industrialising’ of America. He is opposed to new trade-opening agreements and wants to review and renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). McCain, meanwhile, is a free-trader to his fingertips, not a popular position in America these days. Or in France or Italy, for that matter. If Obama makes it to the White House, Australia and Great Britain might be the last men standing in the fight over trade policy.
Then there is the question of race. Obama claims that in his person — white mother, black father — and in his politics he is the first post-racial candidate. With some reason: he has abandoned the strident ‘we are victims’ politics of Jesse Jackson and the older generation of black politicians who reached their political manhood in the days of Martin Luther King and the battle for civil rights. His wife, however, has not: this Princeton graduate and successful corporate lawyer claims to have had no liking for America until the nation showed it would accept her husband’s candidacy. Nor has his pastor of 20 years, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a man who preaches against white America (the government unleashed an Aids epidemic on the black community, so ‘God damn America’), and believes that there are important differences between the brains of whites and blacks.
More important, the voters don’t believe that race has become irrelevant, although things aren’t as the Americans-are-racist crowd in Europe believes. Large numbers of white voters, especially upper-income, highly educated, professional groups — upscale voters — supported Obama in state after state. But virtually no blacks voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries — some 90 per cent cast their ballots for Barack Obama. Their pride in the first black candidate is understandable, but if 90 per cent of white voters had opted for Hillary Clinton, charges of racism would undoubtedly have filled the pages of the predominantly pro-Obama media.
In the 1964 election, Barry Goldwater’s supporters promised Americans a choice, not an echo. Voters here will have just such an election in November, a real choice between candidates with different views of America’s role in the world, and the government’s role in the lives of its citizens. Non-voting residents in other countries, although likely to be affected by the outcome, will have to be content with the role of observers.
More articles from: Irwin Stelzer | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Thank goodness we can have a run on the pound when we need one
Martin Vander WeyerMartin Vander Weyer looks ahead to next week’s Pre-Budget Report and reflects on George Osborne’s contentious remarks about the devaluation of sterling. It looks like Gordon Brown is getting away with his borrowing binge — leaving the Tories isolated
I loved Oliver Stone’s Bush film — and I know why the critics hated it
Rod LiddleThe movie W. did not provide the crude anti-Bush agitprop that the reviewers craved, says Rod Liddle. This was precisely its strength: we need to get inside the minds even of those we most deplore
The great Tory tax and spend battle: seconds out...
Fraser Nelson and Daniel FinkelsteinIn the wake of Cameron’s decision to drop his pledge to match Labour spending, Fraser Nelson and Daniel Fin kelstein of the Times trade rhetorical blows over the issue that is gripping and troubling the Conservative party as it adjusts to the transformed economic context
Where is our inspiration when we most need it?
Bryan ForbesBryan Forbes remembers listening to Churchill as a 14-year-old evacuee and now looks with envy at Obama’s capacity to galvanise hope. Where are his UK counterparts?
For a bit of perspective, try thinking Jurassic
Christopher LloydThe first takeaways originated about 150 million years ago, says Christopher Lloyd; global travel is pretty ancient, too. And as for democracy...
The Republicans are where the Tories were in 1997
James ForsythThis is bad news for the Conservatives, who have always feasted on US right-of-centre ideas, says James Forsyth. But the GOP can learn from the Cameroons
Obama’s America will be more equal but less mighty
Reihan SalamReihan Salam says that the President-elect is no socialist and it was desperate of McCain to claim as much. Obama’s policies more closely resemble European social democracy — with the attendant risk of economic sclerosis in the face of Asian competition
Obama has changed the world just by being elected
James ForsythJames Forsyth looks back on an extraordinary contest and the victory of a man who, even before his inauguration, has had a transformative effect upon American politics
Meet the real Joe Biden: Vice-President Plonker
Freddy GrayThe scrutiny of Sarah Palin diverted attention from Obama’s running mate, says Freddy Gray. Biden is not that popular, a ‘gaffe machine’, and he eats Snickers bars in one mouthful
Obama is on course for victory. But he isn’t ready for the White House
Christopher CaldwellAlthough McCain could still theoretically win, the Democrat candidate looks set for glory, says Christopher Caldwell. But Obama has even less to say about the economic crisis than his rival, and has prospered by keeping quiet on controversial issues
Latest blog posts
sponsored links
Free Sky Digital Offer - Order Now
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be amongst the first to have it - order now.
Free Sky Digital Offer - Order Now
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be...
ROME CENTRE
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
City Breaks. ROME and PARIS
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Jewellery. RUFFS (Estd. 1904).
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
DougS
May 29th, 2008 9:13amYeah, yeah, yeah . . . . OK summary, but nothing new really.
And "world's apart"? That's nonsense. Communists and monarchists are world's apart; by the standards of the West, European parties are more like world's apart; Reagan v Carter or Reagan v Mondale by the standards of the U.S. are world's apart.
But Obama and McCain? No.
McCain rather famously (or notoriously) has to shore up his "base," which means the Reagan conservatives don't particularly like him. At the same time he was considered the most "independent" Republican running and the one probably most appealing to cross-over Dems.
Why? Cuz' on some issues (e.g., immigration) his politics are indistinguishable from Democrats. On others, he's not that far off, including Israel, Afghanistan, NATO, etc. And even on free trade, Obama is hardly a tariff monger; mostly a free-trader.
Petty differences over the environment, gas mileage standards, corporate regulation, campaign finance reform, etc.
Summary: On the scale of American politics, these two are closer than any two Dems. and Repubs. since possibly Ford and Carter. On the scale of all possibilities in politics, there's scarcely a dime's worth of difference between them.
Matthew Blott
May 29th, 2008 1:08pmI agree with a lot of Doug S's comments. Obama is against doing anything about gun control, supports the death penalty and is largely backed by big business. Michael Foot he is not. Similarly McCain is divorced from the Christian Right and would be a welcome break from the theocratic approach of the White House's current occupant. It's not quite the Left versus Right election Irwin Stelzer would have us believe.
Scott Redding
May 29th, 2008 4:25pmWith regard to white voters and Obama, you need to look at age as well. 40% of white voters in North Carolina under the age of 40 voted for Obama, even after the Wright firestorm. Obama will have problems with older white voters in Penn and Fla during the general election. If he does well out west, he might not need Appalachia as much as pundits think.
In South Carolina, in July 2007, amongst African-Americans, Clinton was at 52%, Obama 33%, Edwards on 5%. (the figures are from Meet the Press, last Sunday, transcript on their website). When Obama won South Carolina, he carried the African-American vote by 78 to 19%, over Clinton. Clinton had the African-American vote, but Iowa showed that Obama was viable and a possible winner. Between that, and her hubbie's comments in North Carolina, and her "hard working Americans = white hard working Americans" guff, she blew it. So, it's a bit more complex than saying all the black folks were voting Obama from day one.
Napoleon
May 30th, 2008 1:22am"but if 90 per cent of white voters had opted for Hillary Clinton, charges of racism would undoubtedly have filled the pages of the predominantly pro-Obama media."
Agreed. I don't always agree with your articles, actually most of them I disagree, but this time you're spot on(maybe it's because most of them are facts!).But it's nice to read a fair and balanced article about the American election, when everyone seems to be pro-Obama!
V.R.S. Arni
May 30th, 2008 1:44pmFor a journal of the repute of Spectator, this is a wishy-washy article giving no insight. Any commentary column in NYT brings more to the reader than this.
jon livesey
May 30th, 2008 11:47pmI'm not sure if the author understands Europeans as well as he thinks.
No matter what they say, Europeans are happy to have an assertive US, because it keeps the heat off them, but they are also appreciative of Obama because in his person he flatters their image of themselves, an American politician who wants to adopt some of their social policies, and so on.
The last time something like this happened, they got JFK, a guy who talked like an anglo, but who was not afraid to confront the USSR. A man who flattered Europe and then protected it. Who could ask for anything better?
It is, however, not clear that Obama is a second JFK. JFK could talk and blockade, negotiate and threaten. There is a residual fear that Obama gets the talk part, but hasn't thought through the rest.
My own nightmare scenario is that Obama starts with the talking, gets nowhere, and retreats into isolationism. While this might be poetic justice on Europeans, it does not bode well for world stability or for Europe itself.
David Chorley
June 1st, 2008 3:58amSelzer repeats the global warming mantra as if it were true: There is no way the president or anyone else can affect our climate: All the protocols are designed to build big government and tax the US middle class, whom everyone simultaneously hates, and wants to join.
Mark Hagerman
June 20th, 2008 2:56pmJohn McCain is NOT a conservative! It's been said, correctly, that he's the least dangerous socialist in the race.
Come November, I'll be voting "for" McCain, but not because he'll be a good choice. It's only that I love my country more than I hate him.